Of all the things that bother me about America's never ending gun debate, one of the most troublesome is that so many people think it's an either-or, all-or-nothing issue.
These are the ones who view it as a decision that either everyone - without exception - should have complete, unfettered access to any sort of firearm whatsoever, or that all guns are bad and the fewer in existence, the better we'll all be.
And, of course, both positions are completely wrong-headed.
I believe there are legitimate uses for guns. Hunting would be one of them. And yes, I believe possessing firearms for self-defense is also a legitimate right. I do neither, but I can't justify forcing my view on others.
BUT -- I also believe a national policy including reasonable regulation of the transfer of guns, prohibition of certain types of guns and effective screening of potential gun owners to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands is equally legitimate. And I don't think I'm alone.
There's a reasonable middle ground on the subject that too few people seem to recognize, and that has to change. "Gun control" isn't synonymous with "outlawing guns," nor should it be. And the sooner those involved in the debate -- on both sides -- realize that, the sooner we may achieve some actual progress on the issue.
Call and share your thoughts.
I'm Bill Lamb and that's my Point of View.